Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1975 > Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities > Report No. 07 - European Parliament Direct Elections

REPORT

A. PROGRESS TOWARDS DIRECT ELECTIONS

1. Treaty Provisions

The basic Community Treaties (Articles 138 EEC, 108 Euratom and 21 ECSC) provide that:

“The Assembly (European Parliament) shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.

The Council shall, acting unanimously, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”.

2. Action by European Parliament

The European Parliament by Resolution passed on 14th January, 1975 adopted a draft Convention on the Election of Members of the European Parliament by Direct Universal Suffrage. The draft Convention has been forwarded to the Council of Ministers and the Parliament has instructed its Political Affairs Committee to press the Council and Member States for its early adoption.

3. Paris Meeting of Heads of Government

After their Paris meeting in December, 1974, the Heads of Government announced that they wished the Council to act on the Parliament’s proposals in 1976. On this assumption the first direct elections would take place in 1978. However both the United Kingdom and Denmark entered reservations, the former because of its referendum and the latter because of inability to commit itself to election by universal suffrage in 1978.

4. Provisions of Draft Convention

The draft Convention envisages the election of representatives for a term of five years on a uniform electoral system to be adopted after 1980. In the meantime a Member State could operate whatever electoral system it choose. Elections in all Member States would take place on the same day though the leeway of one day either way would be allowed as would spreading the election over two days (including the common day). Ireland would have 13 Representatives in a Parliament of 355 as compared with 10 in the present Parliament of 198.

B. CONSIDERATION OF MATTER BY JOINT COMMITTEE

5. Terms of Reference of the Joint Committee

The Joint Committee believes that its views on the proposed Direct Elections will be of assistance to the Houses particularly as all the present Members of the European Parliament serve on the Joint Committee. When the question of discussing the draft Convention arose the Joint Committee considered whether the subject came within its terms of reference. While it acknowledges that the matter is not free from doubt it believes that the Resolution passed by the European Parliament on 14th January, 1975 adopting the draft Convention technically brings the matter within its competence. The Joint Committee may, within its terms of reference, examine and report on “acts of the institutions of those Communities”. Although the European Parliament is not specifically mentioned in the Orders of Reference it is without doubt an institution of the Communities. It is not altogether clear how the phrase, “acts of the institutions of the Community”, should be interpreted in relation to the European Parliament but it would seem reasonable to regard it as comprehending resolutions of that body and this view would appear to be in line with those expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Seanad on 26th July, 1973 [Official Report, vol. 75, cols. 766-767].

6. Acknowledgement

The Joint Committee wishes to record its indebtedness to Dr. F. B. Chubb, Professor of Political Science in Trinity College, who made his expertise available to the Joint Committee unsparingly and whose advice was of invaluable assistance to it during its deliberations.

7. Scope of Joint Committee’s Consideration

The Joint Committee confined its deliberations to three aspects of this subject, namely (1) proposed Irish representation, (2) method of election and (3) dual membership of Dail or Seanad and European Parliament. The Joint Committee acknowledges that there are other aspects on which decisions will have to be taken but considers that it may be premature to examine them at this stage when so far no action has been taken by the Council of Ministers.

C. VIEWS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

8. Proposed Irish Representation

When the terms for Ireland’s accession to the European Communities were being negotiated it was appreciated that the very size of the Communities led to a real danger that the national interest of a small country would be swamped. Nevertheless the Irish people overwhelmingly supported the decision to join on the terms negotiated. These include slightly over 5% representation in the European Parliament (10 seats out of 198). It is now proposed to reduce this to 3-7% approximately (13 seats out of 355). Admittedly the principle of giving small states a better ratio of members to population than big states is being maintained. Once this principle is accepted it ought to be recognised that every country needs enough members to enable it to play its full part particularly in committees. Ireland’s experience is that ten members in the present Parliament is far too few to enable the country to get its legitimate voice heard at every committee where it ought to be heard. The Joint Committee accordingly believes that there are strong grounds for maintaining our representation at least at its present level and urges that every effort be made to obtain at least 18 seats under the proposed Convention.

9. System of Election

For the 1973 General Election the total electorate was 1,783,604 of whom 1,366,474 cast their votes. The problem of electing 13-18 representatives with an electorate of this size is manifestly formidable.

Ideally the solution to the problem should ensure the same intimacy between the representative in the European Parliament and his contituents as Members of the Dáil have with theirs. As the Joint Committee believes that this may be difficult to achieve, if only because of the logistics involved, it considers it essential that the Irish representatives in the European Parliament should have and be seen to have a close relationship with the political structure in this country and that the system of election should facilitate the maintenance of that relationship. However, it is only in the first election in 1978 (on present plans) that it will be open to us to have our own electoral system: the draft Convention envisages a uniform electoral system for all Member States after 1980. It would therefore be preferable if the system chosen for the first election were to approximate to what is likely to be adopted for subsequent elections.

In the course of its deliberations the Joint Committee considered the following well known electoral systems:

(i) Proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.

This method has the merit of being well known and acceptable in principle to the electorate as it is employed in national elections. The inevitable huge size of any constituencies selected would, however, in the Joint Committee’s view, make it wholly impracticable for elections to the European Parliament.

(ii) Simple plurality in single member constituencies.

The “first past the post” method has twice been rejected in referenda on the national electoral system. The argument that it tends to produce stable Government has no relevancy in the context of elections to the European Parliament and, in the Joint Committee’s view, its inherent tendency to produce disparity between the popular vote and the resultant representation and to elect members on a minority of votes cast (where there are more than two candidates) makes it unacceptable in principle.

(iii) Alternative vote in single member constituencies.

This is the system by which bye-elections are decided in this country. In the opinion of the Joint Committee it would not be suitable for elections to the European Parliament because the size of the constituencies would involve counts and transfers of huge numbers of votes. Unless there were a very restricted right of nomination of candidates these operations might well reach staggering proportions. In a recent Seanad bye-election it took 13 counts to elect the successful candidate.

Convinced of the unsuitability of the voting systems with which people in this country are familiar, the Joint Committee looked for guidance elsewhere and bearing in mind the projected adoption of a common electoral system after 1980 it naturally turned to the European Continent. It believes that in some form of list system of voting such as is employed in various forms on the Continent may be found the best method of electing our Members of the European Parliament.

Essentially the list system involves voting for party lists of candidates and not for individuals. The total vote obtained by the party determines the number of seats it gets and these seats are filled from the party list in the order in which the names are put on the list by the party. Refinements of the system include provisions for minority representations, disposal of “surplus votes” and, most important, the alteration of list order by the voters. It is with the latter refinement that the Joint Committee would wish to see the list system employed in this country. The system would work as follows.

Each voter would have one vote which he would employ by placing a mark opposite the name of one of the candidates on the party list. The percentage of the total number of valid votes cast which the party as a whole obtained would determine the number of seats it got. These seats would be filled by candidates on the party list in the order of magnitude of the number of votes which they had attracted for their list. To qualify as a party a group would have to be registered in much the same way as for Dáil elections but single candidate lists would be allowed and so the election would be open to independents. There would be no bye-elections; a vacancy during the currency of a Parliament would be filled by the next candidate on the party list and members elected on single candidate lists would be entitled to nominate substitutes to fill any casual vacancies that might arise on those lists between elections.

The Joint Committee considers that some such system would have the advantage of (a) linking the Members of the European Parliament with national political affairs and (b) approximating to the system most likely to be adopted for all nine countries. The system would be equally suitable in a single national constituency or regional constituencies but having regard to the comparatively small number to be elected the Joint Committee favours a single national constituency.

10. Dual Membership

Under the present Treaties members of the European Parliament must be members of their national Parliaments. The draft Convention provides that “membership of the European Parliament shall be compatible with membership of a Parliament of a Member State”. The experience of the members of the Joint Committee who are also members of the present European Parliament suggests that dual membership will, in fact, be difficult to sustain particularly when the powers of the European Parliament are extended. In line, therefore, with its declared objective of maintaining a close link between the members of the European Parliament and the political structure at home the Joint Committee considers that the benefit of those members’ knowledge and experience of European affairs should continue to be available to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Accordingly it recommends that where a member of the European Parliament is not a member of the Oireachtas he should be given a right of audience in the Dáil and Seanad and in appropriate Committees of both Houses. It believes that this objective could be achieved by making appropriate provisions in the Standing Orders for both Houses.

In the Appendix to this report the main provisions of the draft Convention dealing with direct elections are summarised for information.

(Signed) CHARLES J. HAUGHEY,

Chairman of the Joint Committee.

4th June, 1975.